Re: [BUG FIX] Version number expressed in octal form by mistake - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [BUG FIX] Version number expressed in octal form by mistake
Date
Msg-id 28881.1388277709@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [BUG FIX] Version number expressed in octal form by mistake  (Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>)
Responses Re: [BUG FIX] Version number expressed in octal form by mistake
List pgsql-hackers
Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> writes:
> Oh, I just noticed that this is for the *pg_restore* code, not the
> pg_dump code, so there isn't necessarily a conflict with the docs.
> The pg_dump code does match the docs on its version check. The
> question becomes, for each supported version, what do we want to
> set into AHX->minRemoteVersion before opening the connection to the
> target database?� Do we really want a 9.4 executable to be
> attempting to restore to a 7.1 database cluster?� What about
> backpatching?

On reflection, I'm not sure that pg_restore as such should be applying any
server version check at all.  pg_restore itself has precious little to do
with whether there will be a compatibility problem; that's mostly down to
the DDL that pg_dump put into the archive file.  And we don't have enough
information to be very sure about whether it will work, short of actually
trying it.  So why should the code arbitrarily refuse to try?

So I'm inclined to propose that we set min/max to 0 and 999999 here.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: planner missing a trick for foreign tables w/OR conditions
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: truncating pg_multixact/members